alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 570.56 Vacuum brake assist unit and vacuum brake system. The following requirements apply to vehicles with vacuum brake assist units and vacuum brake systems. ( a ) *Vacuum brake assist unit integrity.* The vacuum brake assist unit shall demonstrate integrity as indicated by a decrease in pedal height when the engine is started and a constant 50-pound force is maintained on the pedal. ( 1 ) *Inspection procedure.* Stop the engine and apply service brake several times to destroy vacuum in system. Depress the brake pedal with 50 pounds of force and while maintaining that force, start the engine. If the brake pedal does not move slightly under force when the engine starts, there is a malfunction in the power assist unit.
( b ) *Low-vacuum indicator.* If the vehicle has a low-vacuum indicator, the indicator activation level shall not be less than 8 inches of mercury. ( 1 ) *Inspection procedure.* Run the engine to evacuate the system fully. Shut off the engine and slowly reduce the vacuum in the system by moderate brake applications until the vehicle vacuum gauge reads 8 inches of mercury. Observe the functioning of the low-vacuum indicator.
( c ) *Vacuum brake system integrity.* ( 1 ) The vacuum brake system shall demonstrate integrity by meeting the following requirements: ( i ) The vacuum brake system shall provide vacuum reserve to permit one service brake application with a brake pedal force of 50 pounds after the engine is turned off without actuating the low vacuum indicator.
( ii ) Trailer vacuum brakes shall operate in conjunction with the truck or truck tractor brake pedal.
( 2 ) *Inspection procedure.* ( i ) Check the trailer vacuum system by coupling trailer(s) to truck or truck tractor and opening trailer shutoff valves. Start the engine and after allowing approximately 1 minute to build up the vacuum, apply and release the brake pedal. In the case of trailer brakes equipped with brake chamber rods, observe the chamber rod movement. Run the engine to re-establish maximum vacuum, then shut off the engine and apply the brakes with a 50-pound force on the brake pedal. Note the brake application and check for low-vacuum indicator activation.
( ii ) For a combination vehicle equipped with breakaway protection and no reservoir on the towing vehicle supply line, close the supply line shutoff valve and disconnect the supply line. Apply a 50-pound force to the brake pedal on the towing vehicle and release. Trailer brakes should remain in the applied position.
( d ) *Vacuum system hoses, tubes and connections.* Vacuum hoses, tubes and connections shall be in place and properly supported. Vacuum hoses shall not be collapsed, cracked or abraded. ( 1 ) *Inspection procedure.* With the engine running, examine hoses and tubes for the conditions indicated and note broken or missing clamps.
Editorial Note on Part 387
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 387 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 387.417 Fiduciaries. ( a ) *Interpretations.* The terms “insured” and “principal” as used in a certificate of insurance, surety bond, and notice of cancellation, filed by or for a freight forwarder, include the freight forwarder and its fiduciary (as defined at 49 CFR 387.319(a)) as of the moment of succession.
( b ) *Span of security coverage.* The coverage furnished for a fiduciary shall not apply after the effective date of other insurance or security, filed with and accepted by the FMCSA for such fiduciary. After the coverage shall have been in effect 30 days, it may be cancelled or withdrawn within the succeeding 30 days by the insurer, the insured, the surety, or the principal 10 days after the FMCSA receives written notice. After such coverage has been in effect 60 days, it may be cancelled or withdrawn only in accordance with § 387.413(d).
[55 FR 11201, Mar. 27, 1990. Redesignated at 61 FR 54710, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 49942, Sept. 24, 1997]
#### Milo P. Winters, an Infant, by Guardian, Appellant, v. Thomas McMahon, Respondent.

Judgment of the County Court of Oswego county reversing a justice’s judgment reversed, and the judgment of the Justice’s Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Follett, J.
Pie/km u'Ap J. 

Pickering 

Pa 

J. 

district court lacked jurisdiction. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge 

Rochalonn M. Chapman 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1.947A
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 349 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     February 26, 2002.
    Resolved, That the following Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on International Relations: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Navy destroyer saves crew of burning boat in Arabian Gulf
 By By Ens. Joe Barone, USS Higgins
  **ARABIAN GULF (August 28, 2015)** **—** The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Higgins (DDG 76) rendered assistance to the crew of a burning fishing vessel on Aug. 28.Higgins spotted the vessel on the horizon and proceeded to its location to render assistance.Upon arrival, Higgins found the fishing vessel engulfed in flames. As the ship proceeded closer to investigate, lookouts spotted the vessel's crew in the water clinging to debris. Higgins launched one of her rigid-hull inflatable boats (RHIB) and rescued the four-person crew. After the crew was delivered to the ship, hospital corpsmen examined them while the ship's Rescue and Assistance Team provided them with food and water. None of the crewmen were injured."This was a terrific demonstration of the Navy's ability to render assistance to those in need," said Chief Hospital Corpsman Frank Gonzalez, a San Diego native. "It gave me a deep sense of accomplishment knowing I could help (others) while being deployed."Higgins delivered the four crewmen to local authorities so they could be returned ashore."Higgins is fully capable to perform a full spectrum of operations," said Cmdr. Allen P. Johnson, Higgins' commanding officer. "It is the duty of any professional maritime force to render assistance when needed and we were upholding that responsibility."Higgins is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations, supporting Operation Inherent Resolve, strike operations in Iraq and Syria as directed, maritime security operations and theater security cooperation effort in the region. The ship is homeported in San Diego.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–011 2006

109th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 109–82 

NOTIFICATION TO ENTER INTO A FREE TRADE 

AGREEMENT WITH THE REPUBLIC OF PERU 

MESSAGE 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ENTER INTO A FREE TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, IN ACCORDANCE WITH 

SECTION 2105(a)(1)(A) OF THE TRADE ACT OF 2002 (PUB. L. 107– 

210), PURSUANT TO 19 U.S.C. 2112(e)(1) 

JANUARY 31, 2006.—Message and accompanying papers referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means and ordered to be printed 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 6, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Consistent with section 2105(a)(1)(A) of the 

Trade Act of 2002, (Public Law 107–210; the ‘‘Trade Act’’), I am 

pleased to notify the Congress of my intention to enter into a free 

trade agreement with the Republic of Peru. 

The United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement will generate export opportunities for U.S. farmers, ranchers, and companies, help create jobs in the United States, and help American consumers save money while offering them more choices. The Agreement will also benefit the people of Peru by providing economic opportunity and by strengthening democracy. 

Consistent with the Trade Act, I am sending this notification at 

least 90 days in advance of signing the Agreement. My Administration looks forward to working with the Congress in developing appropriate legislation to approve and implement this Agreement. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1175.html[7/22/2015 3:12:12 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvd-xcp2

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1175

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: D Anonymous

General Comment

Please keep the federal government out of my retirement. I can figure it out for myself.
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of his knowledge: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in the Report.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Union Bankshares, Inc. and will be retained by Union Bankshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


|                                           | 
|------------------------------------------ | 
|/s/ Kenneth D. Gibbons                     | 
|Kenneth D. Gibbons
Chief Executive Officer | 

August 14, 2009
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18
  U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
              SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
The undersigned, Brian J. Kelley, the Chief Executive
Officer of Cognitronics Corporation (the "Company"), has
executed this certification in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005  (the "Report").  The undersigned hereby
certifies that:
	(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of
	Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
	of 1934; and
	(2)  the information contained in the Report fairly
	presents, in all material respects, the financial
	condition and results of operations of the Company.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2006


						/s/ Brian J. Kelley
						Brian J. Kelley
						Chief Executive Officer


                                           A signed original of this
                                           written statement required by
                                           Section 906 has been provided
                                           to the Company and will be
                                           retained by the Company and
                                           furnished to the Securities and
                                           Exchange Commission or its
                                           staff upon request.
1210-AB32-2-1486.html[7/26/2015 5:58:20 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 10, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jwh-nf3a

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1982

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: James Newman

General Comment

Don't mess with my retirement, or IRA, or anyone's 401k! First of all, you will only mess it up (being an entity of

 the Fed'l Gov't) 

and second, we are smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. Don't think you are gonna mess with another of

 our freedoms.

It's my money...don't touch it!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SCOTT DAVID JOHNSON, 

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 419 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, November 7, 1995 (141), Para 141.14 Fire Island National Seashore Land Exchange]
[Page 1875]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.141.14  fire island national seashore land exchange

  Mr. COOLEY moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1163) to 
authorize the exchange of National Park Service land in the Fire Island 
National Seashore in the State of New York for land in the Village of 
Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York; as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, recognized Mr. COOLEY and Mr. 
RICHARDSON, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. SHAYS, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill, as amended, was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the 
table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```
#### GARRETT AMERMAN and RODNEY W. YOUNGLOVE, as Overseers of the Poor of the TOWN OF WOLCOTT, Appellants, *v.*CLARA KALL, Respondent.

*Evidence*— *in civil actions for penalties*— *the aot of an agent is prima facie that of the principal*— *as to whether this rule holds in criminal cases.*

In an action to recover a penalty, under the excise law, for a sale of liquor without a license, proof of a sale by an agent in the shop of the principal, is *prima facie*evidence of a sale by the principal, and is sufficient to sustain a recovery.

*Quewe,*as to whether such evidence would be sufficient to sustain an indictment for violating the excise laws.

Appeal from a judgment of nonsuit 'rendered by the Wayne County Court.

*William Roe,*for the appellants.

*Wood c& Walker,*for the respondent.

Smith, P. J.:

The action was brought by the plaintiffs as overseers of the poor of the town of Wolcott, to recover penalties for selling intoxicating *127liquors without a license. The defendant is- the wife of Charles Kail. The evidence tended to show that the liquors were sold and drunk in a building leased to the defendant, in which a saloon was kept, having a bar at which the liquors were sold and dealt out to customers by the drink, and that the business of the saloon was carried on by the husband as the agent of his wife, and the sales of liquor were made' partly by him as such agent, and partly by a clerk.

The evidence was enough, *prima*fade, to charge the defendant. Although the action is for a penalty it is a civil and not.a criminal action, and for its purpose a sale by an agent in the shop of his principal, or by a servant in the shop of his master, is *prima fade*a sale by the principal or master-. We so held in a similar ease against this same defendant in January last. (MS. opinion by Barker, J.; see, also, *State*v. Wentworth, 65 Me., 234; *Commonwealth v. Nichols,*10 Metc., 259; *State*v. *Brown, 31*Me., 520; *Commonwealth*v. *Morgan,*107 Mass., 199; *Smith*v. *Reynolds,*8 Hun, 128.)

The question whether such evidence would be sufficient to sustain an indictment for violating the excise law is not before us and we do not pass upon it. (See *Riley*v. *State,*43 Miss., 397, 414.)

Aside from this we think there was evidence tending to show that the defendant was cognizant of the unlawful traffic carried on by her husband and authorized the same, which should have been submitted to the jury as the plaintiffs requested.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered in the Wayne County Court, costs to abide event.

Barker, Haight and Bradley, JJ., concurred.

So ordered.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1326.html[7/22/2015 10:29:41 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvg-k5rr

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1326

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Jim Zecchini

Address:

9045 Mustang Road

Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 91701

Email: jzecchini@magmail.com

Phone: 909-941-8921

General Comment

I don't need the government watching over my 401k or anything else. You have done enough damage already.

 The country is basically destroyed for our children and grandchildren. The American Dream is just about

 destroyed thanks to the crew in the Whitehouse.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, September 20, 1995 (118), Para 118.25 Motion to Instruct Conferees--H.R. 1976]
[Page 1425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.118.25  motion to instruct conferees--h.r. 1976

  Mr. DURBIN moved that the managers on the part of the House at the 
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on H.R. 1976, be 
instructed to agree to the amendment of the Senate numbered 88.
  After debate,
  By unanimous consent, the previous question was ordered on the motion 
to instruct the managers on the part of the House.
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House agree to said motion?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. TORKILDSEN, announced that the yeas had 
it.
  So the motion to instruct the managers on the part of the House was 
agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby said motion was agreed to was, 
by unanimous consent, laid on the table.
```
From: Steve Abney [mailto:steve.abney@gmail.com] 

Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 3:36 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

In a just world, there wouldn't be a huge difference between "suitable" and "in the best 

interest." If it's not in my best interest, how can it possibly be suitable?

Why is it I can trust the grocery bagger, who I don't pay, to active in my best interest, such as not 

putting the tomato juice can atop the bread, but I can't trust someone charging 1% AUM to do 

the same?

Steve Abney

Winter Haven FL
§ 511.32 Written interrogatories to parties. ( a ) *Availability; procedures for use.* Any party may serve upon any other party written interrogatories to be answered by the party served or, if the party served is a public or private corporation or a partnership or association or governmental agency, by any officer or agent, who shall furnish such information as is available to the party. Interrogatories may, without leave of the Presiding Officer, be served upon any party after filing of the answer.
( b ) *Procedures for response.* Each interrogatory shall be answered separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated in lieu of an answer. The answers are to be signed by a responsible representative of the respondent and the objections signed by the representative making them. The party upon whom the interrogatories have been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, within 30 days after service of the interrogatories. The Presiding Officer may allow a shorter or longer time for response. The party submitting the interrogatories may move for an order under § 511.36 with respect to any objection to or other failure to answer an interrogatory.
( c ) *Scope of interrogatories.* Interrogatories may relate to any matters which can be inquired into under § 511.31(c)(1), and the answers may be used to the extent permitted under this part. An interrogatory otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory would involve an opinion or contention that relates to fact or to the application of law to fact, but the Presiding Officer may order that such an interrogatory need not be answered until a later time.
( d ) *Option to produce business records.* Where the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the business records of the party upon whom the interrogatory has been served, or from an examination, audit or inspection of such business records, or from a compilation, abstract or summary based thereon, and the burden of deriving the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party served, it is a sufficient answer to the interrogatory to specify the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and to afford to the party serving the interrogatory reasonable opportunity to examine, audit or inspect such records and to make copies, complications, abstracts, or summaries.